Categories of Address Forms in Teacher-student Interactions in Nigerian English

Address forms, which are sociolinguistic parameters in interpersonal communication, differ across languages, cultures and contexts. These differences relate to both the set of forms and their usage. The study aims to identify the categories of address forms used by Nigerian university teachers to students, and to highlight the social, pragmatic and cultural factors that influence their choice. Two contexts were explored: formal (in-class) and informal (out-of-class). The materials for the study were collected through questionnaires with participation of 180 Nigerian students from 10 universities. The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, using interactional sociolinguistics, theory of address terms, pragmatics, politeness and cultural studies. The findings showed that Nigerian university teachers use several categories of address terms when speaking to their students. In addition to names, which is the most frequently used address category, they also use culture-specific categories including kinship terms, teknonyms, descriptive terms, clan names and geographical names. The study also revealed some variation in the use of these terms depending on the context, with a marked shift in patterns between classroom and nonclassroom settings. In informal settings, culture-specific forms of address are more common than in formal settings. These forms act as a means of implementing rapprochement strategies. The identified categories and their usage indicate certain features of Nigerian culture and identity, such as family orientation, ingroup affiliation, closeness and solidarity. The study contributes to the understanding of the impact of culture on address forms and their functioning in Nigerian English, particularly in а multilingual academic setting.

1. Bilá M., Ivanova S.V. Language, culture and ideology in discursive practices. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020;24(2):219–252. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-219-252

2. Larina T.V. Language, culture, cognition and communication: The paradigms of modern linguistic research. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2026;30(1):7–32. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-48905

3. Wierzbicka A. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (2nd ed.). Mouton de Gruyter; 2003.

4. Larina T., Suryanarayan N. Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English. N. Baumgarten & R. Vismans (Eds.), It’s different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research. John Benjamins PC; 2023. P. 142–170. DOI: 10.1075/tar.5.06lar

5. Soomro M.A., Larina T. Mister, bro, or ada? Styles of addressing among multilingual Pakistani students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 2023;23(2):127–146. DOI: 10.17576/gema-2023-2302-08

6. Zhou Q., Larina T.V. Power and solidarity in pronominal forms of address: A case study of Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. Training, Language and Culture. 2024;8(1):87–100. DOI: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100

7. Afful J.B.A. Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language and Intercultural Communication. 2006;6(1):76–91. DOI: 10.1080/1470847060866890

8. Awoonor-Aziaku L. Address terms in classroom discourse: A case of university of Cape Coast students in Ghana. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 2021;11(3):497–510. DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2021. 113037

9. Mensah E. O. A sociolinguistic study of address terms in a Nigerian university's staff club. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 2021;57(4):677–707. DOI: 10.1515/psicl-2021-0024